Mandeep Singh @ Kalu vs State Of Haryana on 22 February, 2024

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Mandeep Singh @ Kalu vs State Of Haryana on 22 February, 2024

Author: Pankaj Jain

Bench: Pankaj Jain

                                                      Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:024869




CRM-M-65110-2023                                                                    1

                                                            2024:PHHC:024869

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                   AT CHANDIGARH
226
                                          CRM-M-65110-2023
                                          Date of decision : 22.02.2024

Mandeep Singh @ Kalu                                          ...... Petitioner

                                versus

State of Haryana                                            ...... Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

Present:    Mr. Siddarth, Advocate and
            Ms. Poonam Choudhary, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Ashok Kumar Sehrawat, DAG, Haryana.

                    ****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.413

dated 17.04.2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections

323, 307 and 34 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act at Police

Station Shahbad, Kurukshetra.

2. As per the contents of the FIR, it has been alleged as

under:-

“Statement of Hardeep Singh son of Sher
Singh resident of Sharifgarh Police Station Shahbad
age 23 years Mobile No. 8127958696. Stated that I
am a resident of the above name address and I am a
soldier posted in the Indian Army. I came to my
home in Sharifgarh on 06/04/2022 after taking AL
leave for 28 days. On 16.04.2022, he was visiting
his native village Sharifgarh while on annual leave.
At about 5.00/6.00 P.M. on 16.04.2022, as per

1 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 23-02-2024 05:54:37 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:024869

CRM-M-65110-2023 2

2024:PHHC:024869

complainant, he and his brother Gurdeep Singh had
gone to Bala Ji Petrol Pump, G.T. Road for getting
the fuel filled. When they were at the petrol pump,
Mandeep Singh @ Kalu son of Channa Singh and
one another person named Babu, son of Rinku came
on Splendor Plus motor-cycle. Without exchange of
any hot words or provocation, Mandeep Singh @
Kalu son of Channa hit him (complainant) on his
hand with a sharp edged weapon (drant).
Immediately thereafter, he called up his father on
mobile phone bearing SIM No.93067-51412 and
narrated the entire incident. His father dialed 112
and requested the police authorities to reach at the
site. To his (complainant’s) good luck, police
arrived, on seeing whom both Mandeep Singh @
Kaluson of Channa and Babu sped away. After
getting the fuel filled, he (complainant) and his
brother Gurdeep Singh headed for their home and as
they reached under the bridge of Sharifgarh,
Mandeep Singh @ Kalu son of Channa
accompanied by co-accused Devender Singh @
Sonu, son of Amarjeet Singh, also arrived at the
scene. Within a split of second, they both started
firing on him and his brother. Unfortunately, his
brother Gurdeep Singh suffered a gun shot injury on
his left arm and resultantly fell down from the
motor-cycle which he was driving. On hearing their
hue and cries several people gathered at the spot on
seeing whom, both Mandeep Singh @ Kalu and
Devender @ Sonu sped away. Family members who
had been intimated rushed him (complainant) and
his brother Gurdeep Singh to CHC, Shahabad,
where immediate medical aid was provided.
Towards the end of the complaint, complainant

2 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 23-02-2024 05:54:38 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:024869

CRM-M-65110-2023 3

2024:PHHC:024869

pointed out that Mandeep Singh @ Kalu son of
Channa and Devender @ Sonu, son of Amarjeet as
also their associate Babu, son of Rinku all residents
of Sharifgarh had unleashed an attack on him and
his brother and had also fired gun shots at them with
a view to kill them. FIR registered on above said
statement.”

3. Petitioner happens to be the main accused as per the

allegation. He is behind bars for more than 01 year and 10 months. Not

only the investigation stands concluded, but the material witnesses i.e.

complainant as well as the victim stand examined. Co-accused

Devender @ Sonu stands admitted to bail vide order dated 05.07.2023

passed in CRM-M-44744-2022, observing as under:-

“xx xx xx

6. It is a case where the petitioner has already
faced incarceration for a period of more than 1 year
and 2 months and even as per the affidavit which
has been filed by the respondent/State in the present
case, it has been so stated that the gun which was
used by the petitioner was a double barrel gun
which was owned by his uncle and as per the
learned counsel for the parties, the injuries sustained
by the injured did not pertain to the aforesaid gun.
The petitioner is stated to be not involved in any
other case. The trial of the case may take long time.
Furthermore, it is neither the case of the State nor it
has been argued by the learned State counsel that in
case the petitioner is released on regular bail then he
may abscond or flee from justice or may influence
the witness or may tamper with the evidence.

3 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 23-02-2024 05:54:38 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:024869

CRM-M-65110-2023 4

2024:PHHC:024869

7. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court deems it fit
and proper to grant regular bail to the petitioner.
Consequently, the present petition is allowed and
the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular
bail on furnishing bail bond/surety bond to the
satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate
concerned, if not required in any other case.”

4. By now, only 02 out of 24 witnesses have been examined.

Thus, the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future.

5. Keeping in view the incarceration suffered by the

petitioner, the fact that the trial is proceeding at snail pace and is not

likely to conclude in the near future and the fact that since the star

witnesses stand examined, there is no apprehension that the petitioner

shall tamper with the evidence, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner

is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety

bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. Trial Court/Duty Magistrate,

concerned.

6. Needless to say nothing recorded herein shall be construed

to be an expression of an opinion on the merits of the case.

                                                (PANKAJ JAIN)
                                                    JUDGE
22.02.2024
Dinesh
                    Whether speaking/reasoned :                Yes

                    Whether Reportable :                       No

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:024869

4 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 23-02-2024 05:54:38 :::